So this fucker is seriously arguing separation of church and state when it's convenient but no separation when not convenient
I mean
I just
you don't see how your own brain is malfunctioning here
I mean "Government can't interfere with us through taxation" but "We can interfere wholesale with the process of government using our social/religious power"
How can you possibly hold both these ideals in your head at once and remain logically consistant
Havent seen the bit yet, but the argument is pretty simple, and seems to be carried by many Americans:
The separation of Church and State in the US means that the State has no say in religious believes of individuals. So it can't stop them from doing something because they're religous.
At the same time, democratic power means that religion is allowed as an argument to pass something through state. So abortion being illegal because people think religiously its wrong is allowed.
In the US, people seem to believe the separation is a one way street. So it gives churches immunity from influence while they're still allowed to influence others.
Of course, the argument is a bit strange, since if I start a religion that allows gay marriage, the state can't forbid me, but at the same time it doesn't allow me.
Obviously, the best way to solve this is a two way separation, but even more sophisticated countries like most in Europe over here have some form of religious influence on state level. Sadly.
